Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral context: `spec` is editable and round-trips to glitchless_set_dashboard, money panels answer `currency`, and `mismatch` amounts sent in another currency are excluded. Auth needs and pagination are not covered, keeping it from a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is front-loaded with purpose and most clauses carry distinct information about the response, but the whole description is one dense run-on paragraph chained with semicolons. The trailing parenthetical about where people upload logos in the UI ('Edit pages → Look') is peripheral and could be cut.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With nine optional params, a nested `props` object, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description's main burden is conveying the response shape, which it partly does (source, spec, brand, currency, mismatch). It stops short of a coherent return-value overview and mixes input and output fields, leaving an agent with some ambiguity about what exactly is returned.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema itself richly documents all nine parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond that—it restates `page` and mentions a `where` concept that is not an actual input parameter (property filtering is done via the schema's `props`), which is mildly confusing.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening names the resource ('The game's dashboard') and enumerates what it returns: pages in order, boards vs built-in views, and one board's panels with numbers, which lets an agent distinguish it from single-metric siblings like glitchless_performance. The verb is implicit ('fetch/read') rather than stated, and the long list of built-in view names slightly blurs the core purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives some routing: '`page` picks the board (default: the first)' and `spec` is 'what to edit and send back to glitchless_set_dashboard', implying read-before-edit usage. But it never says when to use this over glitchless_overview or the dedicated view tools, nor any when-not conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.